I'll pick on a few. I found most of them too twisted and would require long essays as responses.
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
The difference between rationality and irrationality seems important to me. This indicates that the Christian view does not see the distinction since it claims something that can't be proved and at the same time claims this to be rational.
You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.
Perhaps if the claims could be proved, then….
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the centre-piece of a philosophical critique.
I prefer invisible flying green elephants. But then Christians spend vastly more time insisting on something equally fantastic.
You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".
I think it is now 15%, but whatever. This is argumentum ad numerum. The Christian reasoning would conclude that at one time the Earth was indeed flat since at one time not long ago nearly everyone on the planet believed the world was flat. Truth cannot be determined by a majority vote.
You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
But computers etc. were not designed. They evolved just like everything else. If this were otherwise then why didn't cavemen design the modern computer, or why haven't we yet designed warp-drive technology?
All these things evolved from smaller simpler mechanisms and processes, and they in turn were the result of something simpler. Human involvement is nothing more than a catalyst similar to the way biological enzymes allow many biological processes to take place.
We have zero evidence of anything complex ever resulting from intelligent design.
When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause(God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect(the world without God)".
I see no need to settle for either. I question the need to even consider an origin.
You descended from apes.(Think about it.)
Basic misunderstanding of evolution.
When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.
Or more likely he is finally giving in to the obvious but he has still a long way to go.
Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way.
Perhaps this had been mis-quoted but from my perspective most atheists seem to think that the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are LARGE. Simply join the dots from evolution and the obvious result is abiogenesis.
When you say "I don't know" you are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question.
But Christians never say that they don't know, that is the point. They think they KNOW but they can't prove how they know.
